Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

How next-gen OpenGL [5] will kill DirectX 12 (i.e. AMD's Mantle on Linux & Android) !

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    This is totally wrong

    This is all based on poor assumptions. To take anything like this seriously you need to link something for proof, instead of taking up space with conjecture..

    An example, -- Directx 12 is NOT based on Mantle, they are different api's and was mentioned since Mantle was announced..

    http://www.extremetech.com/gaming/17...oy-amds-mantle


    The Mantle Angle

    We’ve spoken to several sources with additional information on the topic who have told us that Microsoft’s interest in developing a new API is a recent phenomenon, and that the new DirectX (likely DirectX 12) will substantially duplicate the capabilities of AMD’s Mantle. The two APIs won’t be identical — Microsoft is doing its own implementation — but the end result, for consumers, should be the same: lower CPU overhead and better scaling in modern titles.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by johnc View Post
      Look at how long the industry dragged its feet to adopt the new things in DX 11, or 11.1 or 11.2. OGL 4.x has been out for YEARS and there's not a single game using it.
      The problem isn't the API here. It's not the GPU vendors either.
      that even shows the success of Mantle more, OGL 4.x is out for years still no game, but Mantle is kind of beta out for a few months and there are some games using it, and many that will include it anounced.

      And that its not a API problem we have to see that, OGL 5.0 or dx12 has to proove that it can at least nearly as fast as mantle. They are both more highlevel apis still, so it has to be proved that it can still be that good.

      We see that multiplattform EVEN Multi-Vendor support doesnt matter taht much, else OGL would be very successful. So theese arguments are not taht true.

      Except maybe with steamos we see more opengl ports?


      Its pretty simple, most advantages opengl has gaming develoopers dont care at all, they only use it now for linux because its more or less the only way to port a game to linux, they have no choice if they had one they would choose always not to use it, like we seen before linux was a target plattform for them.

      They just see they have more work to do to get it running with opengl and till now that did not lead in big performance advantages.

      Btw a higher level api also means often more abstraction, what means more difficult to develop or maintain and to test. So this "advantage" is for many developers a disadvantage at least thats what I guess, thats maybe the reason why the gaming comapnies have no big problem with a low level engine, because they just target a few grafic cards and dont have to implement 100 different coding paths for different generations. At least not now... later on yes with 5 hardware generations and 3-10 hardware vendors it would change into more work, but in this constellation its most likely way easier to support than opengl.

      Comment


      • #18
        Gaming development is the last year production line producment, u take one engine unreal engine 3 and produce 1000 games which are all very similar change a few textures a few mechanics and u reduce product live time to a minium. And it seems opengl failed in the past onto that.

        Maybe thats the fault of some engine developers but even the best opengl-gaming companies quited using opengl id software.

        I just dont see it come back. I am not so deep into it, but I seen that most gaming opengl developers were pretty much pissed that opengl v4 was just a minor improvement instead of brave stepp, the problem is kronos dont prioritise gaming, its just a small part they care, they care mostly not about gaming but everything else, and that cant compete with a api that primary targets gaming development like directx. (or direct3d) even that it is all included in one package instaed of direct3d + 20 different sound and input engines helps DX. Ok we now have sdl but how long did we have that now since 15 years so companies had time before to migrate to that, why would they do that now, to migrate some old games to linux yes maybe... but I dont see majore AAA titels using it... maybe I am wrong we will see...

        Comment


        • #19
          There are games out there that have paths for both 3.x and 4.x ... Or 3.x with some extensions from 4.x

          And whole point of "AZDO" is to spread good PR about specific ways of solving problems that are fast, meaning that more software using those is coming.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by johnc View Post
            Look at how long the industry dragged its feet to adopt the new things in DX 11, or 11.1 or 11.2. OGL 4.x has been out for YEARS and there's not a single game using it.

            The problem isn't the API here. It's not the GPU vendors either.
            Try to think from the devs' perspective. Say 10% of your market has GL4 cards - installed base is king. How many extra sales would you make if you spent the effort to port your engine to gl4 techniques? Would those extra sales offset the cost of making the port?

            The answers to those questions tend to be "something between 0 and 2" and "no, hell no".

            If you tried to go hardcode and did GL4 only, you just cut your sales by 90%, possibly more.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by curaga View Post
              Try to think from the devs' perspective. Say 10% of your market has GL4 cards - installed base is king. How many extra sales would you make if you spent the effort to port your engine to gl4 techniques? Would those extra sales offset the cost of making the port?

              The answers to those questions tend to be "something between 0 and 2" and "no, hell no".

              If you tried to go hardcode and did GL4 only, you just cut your sales by 90%, possibly more.
              Then just imagine how much worse the situation would be with Mantle, which requires you to target the GPU at a lower-level. I doubt it's going to be more abstract than DX or OGL to the point that you can use the techniques and cover a large swath of the GPU marketshare.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by johnc View Post
                Then just imagine how much worse the situation would be with Mantle, which requires you to target the GPU at a lower-level. I doubt it's going to be more abstract than DX or OGL to the point that you can use the techniques and cover a large swath of the GPU marketshare.
                Same with, MS DX12 witch do not exist right now.

                Apple Metal is in better possition, as it command close to 50% of high end gaming. (There are equal number of Android phones equipped with OpenGL ES 3.0 !)

                And its NOT 10% of market.

                It much more. No os restriction can only help. And on Win Intel DO support "AZDO".
                No excuse to use it. Especially if code will support OpenGL 4.x anyway.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by johnc View Post
                  Then just imagine how much worse the situation would be with Mantle, which requires you to target the GPU at a lower-level. I doubt it's going to be more abstract than DX or OGL to the point that you can use the techniques and cover a large swath of the GPU marketshare.
                  Mantle is different in that you get marketing support from AMD, and perhaps pure cash too. So the decision to use Mantle does not depend on users buying because of it (face it, nobody buys games because they use technique X), but the cost gets covered by that support. Compare to The Way It's Meant To Be Played by Nvidia - that program too covers the cost for the devs.

                  The cost of GL4 would be a burden to the dev alone.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by curaga View Post
                    The cost of GL4 would be a burden to the dev alone.
                    In the past yes, but now we will have opengl4 support in future engines like ue4, cryengine 3, unity? and unigine(unused engine i know). So it's not burden to devs alone anymore.

                    And about android, in future it uses opengles3.1+AEP(android expansion pack). Which is
                    a new set of extensions to OpenGL ES that bring desktop class graphics to Android. Games will be able to take advantage of tessellation and geometry shaders, and use ASTC texture compression.
                    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-tAZtbDZ8E

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      You are assuming everyone buys one of those engines.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by curaga View Post
                        You are assuming everyone buys one of those engines.
                        Of course every dev won't buy one of those engine, they won't suite every game(and I misread your earlier post, so I agree it could be burden to dev alone).

                        And opengl is part of nvidia gameworks libraries(if some dev with his grazy mind would use gameworks middleware), thus you could get support for opengl4 from nvidia as you get support with mantle from amd:

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          So is OpenGL5 = Mantle or is that just speculation?

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Dukenukemx View Post
                            So is OpenGL5 = Mantle or is that just speculation?
                            Pure speculation. Mantle shader syntax is HLSL based eg...

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X